Post by: jackelope on April 21, 2017, 07:03:06 PM
I was under the impression that there had to be more than 1 permit available in order for the raffle guy to be able to hunt a specific unit?
Anyone know what's up with that?
@norsepeak
@shanevg
Post by: Naches Sportsman on April 21, 2017, 07:05:02 PM
Post by: bugs n bones on April 21, 2017, 08:08:29 PM
Post by: MerriamMagician on April 22, 2017, 04:55:34 PM
Post by: jackelope on April 22, 2017, 05:02:35 PM
Any insight into this from SCI or the RMGA org?
Post by: Jpmiller on April 23, 2017, 07:33:53 AM
And I would agree with the population numbers being ok to hunt. I have not seen any decline in my experience. I'm not scientist though.
Post by: Bob33 on April 23, 2017, 08:33:42 AM
Post by: coachcw on April 23, 2017, 08:42:55 AM
Post by: Tbar on April 23, 2017, 08:48:18 AM
The last season a Blazed Ridge goat permit was available was 2014.The deviation happened last year and it went from any unit with two tags to unit's opened by the commission, which included blazed.
Post by: Tbar on April 23, 2017, 09:24:18 AM
Post by: Bob33 on April 23, 2017, 09:38:37 AM
Post by: Tbar on April 23, 2017, 09:44:47 AM
1969. ;)If only they had realized reproduction rates were not the same as deer we may not be in this situation.
Post by: tonymoe on April 24, 2017, 07:59:34 AM
Wow!
Post by: Rainier10 on April 24, 2017, 08:08:21 AM
This deviation really calls to question the ethics of the department and more specifically the person in charge of the OIL program. It not only is a deviation from the framework, it is stolen opportunities (chowder also) from the rank and file hunters. With the limited number of tags available and the likelihood of actually drawing it's a sad state of affairs that political pressure would allow stolen opportunities. I'm all for species specific conservation but this takes it to a whole new level. You are allowing a special interest to control possibly 30%, possibly more, of available harvest (blazed and chowder+ all other opened).:yike: :yeah: :bash: That about sums it up.
Post by: Bushcraft on April 24, 2017, 10:13:16 AM
@Bushcraft
Any insight into this from SCI or the RMGA org?
I'd have to compare and contrast this year's regs against last year, but I seem to recall Blazed Ridge being an option for the raffle tag holder. I'd have to talk with Rich to learn why there isn't a special permit tag for that area. If I had to guess I suspect it's because they want to spread out the potential impact that the Governor and Raffle tags might have on existing special permit areas. For example, if there are two tags in a special permit drawing area AND there was a strong interest in the G Tag and Raffle Tag holders to also hunt that area (think Mt. Baker), it stands to reason that potentially four mature billies would be taken out of a given population thereby creating a management dilemma in the following year.
Personally, I think the Governor's and Raffle tags ought to be statewide. Doing so would take the hunting pressure off of the special permit areas and allow the tag holders to try and harvest older dominant billies in otherwise non-hunted populations. Those old goats are literally just going to continue propagating inbreeding issues before they die from old age or take a fatal tumble. The former is piss-poor management, the latter is an unfortunate waste. If I had either tag and the opportunity to do so legally, I wouldn't focus my time and energy on any of the established areas. Just sayin'. ;)
Planning is underway with WDFW/RMGA/SCI to do a count/observation in the Alpine Lakes this summer, likely during the July 15-16 weekend. Stay tuned for details!
Post by: jackelope on April 24, 2017, 10:35:46 AM
Post by: shanevg on April 24, 2017, 10:59:30 AM
This deviation really calls to question the ethics of the department and more specifically the person in charge of the OIL program. It not only is a deviation from the framework, it is stolen opportunities (chowder also) from the rank and file hunters. With the limited number of tags available and the likelihood of actually drawing it's a sad state of affairs that political pressure would allow stolen opportunities. I'm all for species specific conservation but this takes it to a whole new level. You are allowing a special interest to control possibly 30%, possibly more, of available harvest (blazed and chowder+ all other opened).
:yeah:
The whole thing is BS. The idea behind letting raffle/governor tag holders only hunt specific units was so that undue pressure wouldn't be put on a single unit. This just seems to show that the commission is using it as a way to take tags and opportunities away from the regular joe applicants and giving it to the highest bidder. Taking a huntable population of goats (or sheep a la the Rocky Mountain bighorn raffle) and providing hunting opportunity only to raffle/governor tag holders doesn't mesh with my understanding (a la the fairness) of commission flexibility in assigning hunt areas to the raffle winner.
Furthering what Allen said about raffle/governor tag holders getting to hunt state wide I actually do understand that to an extent. There are dozens of goat populations all throughout the state that have good numbers of goats and big goats but don't meet the 100 goat population minimum to justify a tag. It would be ideal to maybe offer a tag to general applicants for those sub-populations once every other year, every third year, or every 4th year (you get the idea) to at least allow harvest of the mature billies that are otherwise dying of old age. The problem is that the general tag isn't historically as picky on goats they shoot. The whole concept behind the 100 goat minimum is that smaller populations cannot sustain even an accidental nanny harvest as easily and readily as a population that exceeds 100 animals. Historically, raffle/governor tag holders are more invested in harvesting a trophy, mature billy and therefore less likely to make a mistake and accidentally shoot a nanny. With that in mind, allowing those hunters opportunities at other populations does make a lot of sense.
(We can all discuss later how conservative of a minimum population of 100 animals is, it probably should be closer to 50 animals, but that's a whole different can of worms.)
Post by: Tbar on May 28, 2017, 11:52:46 PM
Okanogan moose tag? Same as blazed.This deviation really calls to question the ethics of the department and more specifically the person in charge of the OIL program. It not only is a deviation from the framework, it is stolen opportunities (chowder also) from the rank and file hunters. With the limited number of tags available and the likelihood of actually drawing it's a sad state of affairs that political pressure would allow stolen opportunities. I'm all for species specific conservation but this takes it to a whole new level. You are allowing a special interest to control possibly 30%, possibly more, of available harvest (blazed and chowder+ all other opened).
:yeah:
The whole thing is BS. The idea behind letting raffle/governor tag holders only hunt specific units was so that undue pressure wouldn't be put on a single unit. This just seems to show that the commission is using it as a way to take tags and opportunities away from the regular joe applicants and giving it to the highest bidder. Taking a huntable population of goats (or sheep a la the Rocky Mountain bighorn raffle) and providing hunting opportunity only to raffle/governor tag holders doesn't mesh with my understanding (a la the fairness) of commission flexibility in assigning hunt areas to the raffle winner.
Furthering what Allen said about raffle/governor tag holders getting to hunt state wide I actually do understand that to an extent. There are dozens of goat populations all throughout the state that have good numbers of goats and big goats but don't meet the 100 goat population minimum to justify a tag. It would be ideal to maybe offer a tag to general applicants for those sub-populations once every other year, every third year, or every 4th year (you get the idea) to at least allow harvest of the mature billies that are otherwise dying of old age. The problem is that the general tag isn't historically as picky on goats they shoot. The whole concept behind the 100 goat minimum is that smaller populations cannot sustain even an accidental nanny harvest as easily and readily as a population that exceeds 100 animals. Historically, raffle/governor tag holders are more invested in harvesting a trophy, mature billy and therefore less likely to make a mistake and accidentally shoot a nanny. With that in mind, allowing those hunters opportunities at other populations does make a lot of sense.
(We can all discuss later how conservative of a minimum population of 100 animals is, it probably should be closer to 50 animals, but that's a whole different can of worms.)
Post by: CarbonHunter on May 29, 2017, 07:07:28 AM
@Bushcraft
Any insight into this from SCI or the RMGA org?
I'd have to compare and contrast this year's regs against last year, but I seem to recall Blazed Ridge being an option for the raffle tag holder. I'd have to talk with Rich to learn why there isn't a special permit tag for that area. If I had to guess I suspect it's because they want to spread out the potential impact that the Governor and Raffle tags might have on existing special permit areas. For example, if there are two tags in a special permit drawing area AND there was a strong interest in the G Tag and Raffle Tag holders to also hunt that area (think Mt. Baker), it stands to reason that potentially four mature billies would be taken out of a given population thereby creating a management dilemma in the following year.
Personally, I think the Governor's and Raffle tags ought to be statewide. Doing so would take the hunting pressure off of the special permit areas and allow the tag holders to try and harvest older dominant billies in otherwise non-hunted populations. Those old goats are literally just going to continue propagating inbreeding issues before they die from old age or take a fatal tumble. The former is piss-poor management, the latter is an unfortunate waste. If I had either tag and the opportunity to do so legally, I wouldn't focus my time and energy on any of the established areas. Just sayin'. ;)
Planning is underway with WDFW/RMGA/SCI to do a count/observation in the Alpine Lakes this summer, likely during the July 15-16 weekend. Stay tuned for details!
I thought they were going to count the goats last year in the Alpine Lakes west of the crest? Does anyone know how many they counted? Also, are they planning on counting the entire ALW this year or just the west again?
Post by: bearpaw on May 29, 2017, 07:56:01 AM
Post by: Tbar on May 29, 2017, 08:02:00 AM
It makes no sense at all to let old billies die because a goat population is under 100 goats. The inability of WDFW to think strategically is just ridiculous. :bash: :bash: :bash:I agree. What I struggle with is the motivation that the WDFW uses to initiate/ allow/ eliminate a hunt. The criteria is another subject entirely, it is deemed meaningless when you are managing for POTENTIAL harvest and cutting tags from the general pool to benefit the auction tags. As long as it keeps passing the sniff test it will continue down that road.
Post by: jackelope on May 30, 2017, 10:05:30 AM
@Bushcraft
Any insight into this from SCI or the RMGA org?
I'd have to compare and contrast this year's regs against last year, but I seem to recall Blazed Ridge being an option for the raffle tag holder. I'd have to talk with Rich to learn why there isn't a special permit tag for that area. If I had to guess I suspect it's because they want to spread out the potential impact that the Governor and Raffle tags might have on existing special permit areas. For example, if there are two tags in a special permit drawing area AND there was a strong interest in the G Tag and Raffle Tag holders to also hunt that area (think Mt. Baker), it stands to reason that potentially four mature billies would be taken out of a given population thereby creating a management dilemma in the following year.
Personally, I think the Governor's and Raffle tags ought to be statewide. Doing so would take the hunting pressure off of the special permit areas and allow the tag holders to try and harvest older dominant billies in otherwise non-hunted populations. Those old goats are literally just going to continue propagating inbreeding issues before they die from old age or take a fatal tumble. The former is piss-poor management, the latter is an unfortunate waste. If I had either tag and the opportunity to do so legally, I wouldn't focus my time and energy on any of the established areas. Just sayin'. ;)
Planning is underway with WDFW/RMGA/SCI to do a count/observation in the Alpine Lakes this summer, likely during the July 15-16 weekend. Stay tuned for details!
I thought they were going to count the goats last year in the Alpine Lakes west of the crest? Does anyone know how many they counted? Also, are they planning on counting the entire ALW this year or just the west again?
I believe the survey was in the Goat Rocks last year.
@fillthefreezer
@Bushcraft
I don't believe a survey was done in the west side of the ALW at all recently.
Post by: fillthefreezer on May 30, 2017, 10:53:26 AM
the year before that, there was a survey done in the ALW but only as far west as red pass or so. this survey was not near as encompassing as the goat rocks survey due to weather, and being understaffed by volunteers, IMO.
Post by: DOUBLELUNG on May 30, 2017, 11:01:53 AM
Post by: PlateauNDN on May 31, 2017, 03:38:45 PM
Agreed. There is a huge amount of goats in that unit. They could easily give out 4-5 tags a year for that unit. Instead there hasn't been a tag available in what, 3 years now? Ridiculous :dunno:
:yeah: it's been since at least 2013 I believe :dunno: they're all over in there and not just limited to blazed ridge itself.
Lots of areas that hold goats not currently open that could support limited tags.